The Myth of the Recovery Step: Pro Backhands

[10splayer]

This is just my opinion, and is not based on absolute fact. But i think we are making this a little more complicated then it needs to be. The theoretic kinetic chain is pretty straight forward. For a segment to increase it's rotational speed, the previous link needs to decrease, or slow..

At some stage in the backswing, the hips are going to fire, and if not acted on by an external force, that rate would remain constant. When the off leg "holds its line", or "kicks back", it slows hip rotation and transfers kinetic energy to the next segment in a more efficient way. (the torso)

Also, as mentioned by many, over rotation would have a negative impact on the swing path as well...

[stotty]

What do you guys think of this golf swing as an analogy to the recovery step. To me it's perfect. Look how GOLFPlayer sort of does the "Welby Van Horn" compensatory move with the back foot initially before he walks it on through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o_cMVg4uEg

But Gary Player is totally done with his swing before he makes this move and he isn't even worried about the ball coming back to him. He's going to stroll down the fairway to find the one he just hit.

I was curious as to how you would interpret this seeing as this is also a two handed stroke and some of the footwork and time constraint issues seem to be applicable here as well.

Yes that right leg is the last thing to come thru..."eventually his right foot cannot grip any longer".

Tons of rotation in golf I see....

I played golf just once with my father around ten years ago. I hit the air on the first couple of balls before I got the hang of it. After some coaching from my father, I stuck one good shot that went dead straight about 150 yards down the fairway. It was a great feeling that. I hardly touched it compared to my earlier attempts where I tried to whack it. That's the only time I ever played. My father played off scratch, as did his uncle. When I retire from tennis, I will take up golf.

[don_budge]

Tennis is Golf on the Run...

Yes that right leg is the last thing to come thru..."eventually his right foot cannot grip any longer".

Tons of rotation in golf I see....

I played golf just once with my father around ten years ago. I hit the air on the first couple of balls before I got the hang of it. After some coaching from my father, I stuck one good shot that went dead straight about 150 yards down the fairway. It was a great feeling that. I hardly touched it compared to my earlier attempts where I tried to whack it. That's the only time I ever played. My father played off scratch, as did his uncle. When I retire from tennis, I will take up golf.

And yes DB, that Gary Player video is right on point. Many would conclude that GP swings his right leg around with the swing. The subtle nuance of his right foot "holding the line' would be missed by many. Unabated rotation is a bad thing.

Thanks tennis_chiro in further engaging this thread with some erstwhile discussion about this all important topic of "recovery steps", footwork and weight shift or transfer. I think the ensuing comments are really informative and important information for tennis coaches. I might add once more that it is a super article by johnyandell.

So Stotty, you have golf in your genes…don't wait until you retire then. Go and get a couple of lessons from a good pro and do a little work on the range in advance of your retirement.

I learned more about tennis from playing and teaching golf than I ever learned from tennis. You are dead on the money about the rotation thing…in golf if you want to generate more distance (power) you turn the shoulders and hips more. There is also the danger of over rotation in golf as well. These remarks are very appropriate for this discussion about recovery steps, balance and the like.

I know that both tennis_chiro and 10splayer are excellent golfers and it really is telling in their analysis and attention for detail. I have always recognized this. They also are intimately familiar with the "natural" kinetic chain of the swing. Attention klacr…I believe that much of my forehand progress was made after I "returned" to tennis from golf. In fact I know that it did. Go and seek the same advise that I gave Stotty just now if you have the time. This business about Ben Hogan and the lower body initiating the chain of events in the swing…Gary Player and his "recovery step"…after the swing. All good topics of conversation that are more than adequately illustrated by fundamental golf mechanics, principles and technique.

"Tennis is Golf on the run…" -don_budge

[don_budge]

Kinetic Chain…and Rocket Science

This is just my opinion, and is not based on absolute fact. But i think we are making this a little more complicated then it needs to be. The theoretic kinetic chain is pretty straight forward. For a segment to increase it's rotational speed, the previous link needs to decrease, or slow..

hahaha…I made the comment recently….somewhere…that the kinetic components were like the stages of a multi-stage rocket falling away as they were used up. This comment, like every other comment I have made in my 2,328 posts and counting is not based on absolute fact either.

[stotty]

When you watch clips in real time, it looks for all the world the recovery step is very much part of the stroke. Without John's high speed videos it's likely many of us would be none the wiser. You can easily understand how coaches misunderstand the concept and teach it incorrectly.

I just love the Gary Player clip. He's like a corkscrew, and his arms seem really tucked in to his body on the point of contact...more than I would have imagined. Looks an interesting game.

[tennis_chiro]

Some food for thought!

Okay. Now we have a deeper discussion started. I don't know if I can get my thoughts down in the correct order, but there are definitely a couple of points I wanted to highlight. They may not be in the correct order of hierarchy, but I'm going to try to get them out.

My main points:
1). I like the separation of the recovery step from the actual hitting action, but there is more to understanding that comparison to the Gary Player step-through.
2). I love 10sPlayer's emphasis on the staging of the different pieces of the kinetic chain. There is a fundamental conservation of force or momentum or whatever in play here. But that the fact that one stage stops to transfer its' energy to the next link in the kinetic chain, necessarily implies that that first stage fired in the first place.
3). There should be some fundamental difference between a two-handed backhand and an opposite hand forehand; after all, we are doing something with that second hand.
4). Finally, I have a ridiculous, over-the-top analogy to try and make my point about the use of the hips to power the maximum power 2hbh.

So, first the separation of the recovery step. One of the big, underemphasized advantages of open-stance strokes is the fact that you are closer to the center of the court and have a shorter recovery to make because you didn't take that last step to close the stance; but even there, the recovery movement happens after the completion of the real hitting action of the stroke. And it's a big mistake, when you do assume that closed stance (which we are recognizing happens most of the time on the pro bh, one or two-handed) to try to execute the recovery before you complete the hitting action. I think KLACR made the point about pulling out of the shot too soon. I see this all the time. It's really important to complete the shot and get the weight all the way to the front side. This is what Gary Player's step-through is all about. The non-golfers here may not be as familiar, but one of the most common faults in a hacker's golf swing is a "reverse pivot". The classic golf swing is supposed to rock the weight from front to back on the backswing loading the hips and shoulders with the "x-factor" and then unwind that force leading from the bottom up with the legs moving the weight to the front leg where all the weight is on the front leg by contact and moreover settles there in the classic golf follow-through. In the "reverse pivot", the hacker ends up loading from front to back and all the way to the middle or the front on the backswing and ends up going from front to back as he swings the club down to the ball. One of the other classic hacker's faults (and single digit golfer's faults as well) is swinging from the top or going over the top. This means, basically, that they are starting the downward swing with their hands and arms instead of with their legs and hips; yeah, we are talking kinetic chain again. A lot of golfers really have a terrible time overcoming that "reverse pivot". Perhaps at some time in his career or development, Gary Player had a similar problem. His solution was to be sure that he could step forward down the fairway immediately after his swing was completed and the result is the signature GP "step through follow through". Obviously, it would be very hard to do if you had finished your swing with your weight on your back foot. You'd have to transfer the weight off that rear foot before you could make the step forward. This seems pretty obvious and simple, but I can't tell you how many golfers I've seen struggling to overcome that reverse pivot. It probably happens less now with all the video we have available on our phones, but it is still a major problem for a lot of golfers. To a certain extent, there is a "reverse pivot" in the 2hbh (as Kyle pointed out) when the weight transfer is not completed and held until the end of the hitting action if not the full followthrough. I insist on until the full followthrough because if the player comes out of the shot too early it is going to impact the quality of the transfer of momentum to the ball.
2) 10sPlayer and don_budge (with his rocket ship) both make great points about the transfer of energy from one link in the kinetic chain to the next. But if that link wasn't really moving in the first place, it wouldn't have any energy to contribute to the process. We also get back to that equal and opposite reaction business. (Remember Vic Braden telling Roscoe about the amount of force on the ground when he hit that serve. Of course, if we start to travel down that avenue of discussion we will get sidetracked on the whole business of how much energy went into the ball and how much went into just lifting the player into the air - ever think about that!?) If that left leg and hip is actually contributing any force to the 2hbh, then there has to be some force on the ground at the left foot; it can only contribute some portion of the force with which it is pushing on the ground. If that foot is sliding back away from the ''stance line", it can't be exerting any real force on the ground. If you are in the air, as Murray is in the clip, the left leg can't push on the ground and the left leg has to kick back to counter balance and create opposite momentum that enables the upper body to have something to swing against; this is a little like the kick we execute when we make a jump overhead, especially moving backwards (boy, did I used to love hitting those! If I tried to make that kick now, I would just end up in a heap on the ground with I don't know what muscles pulled!). Maybe the hips don't turn all the way to the front like they do on a forehand, but there should be significant hip rotation, and not just from closed at 135 degrees to 90 degrees(perpendicular to the net), at least to 45 degrees if not all the way forward like in a forehand. This does not change the fact that the left toe should be acting like an anchor holding you back after the hitting action is completed and as the followthrough is completed; but just before that contact point, the left foot should be exerting force to get the hips to turn. Certainly, it is possible to use your right side exclusively to turn the hips even as your left foot is off the ground, but that would not be ideal and it certainly would not be the most powerful hip turn. (more on that in my example below). Remember, I am talking about the ideal way to hit the biggest, baddest, best possible 2hbh.
My first guess about how can I hit a bigger forehand on a sitter, in the air ala Federer "not gone" video or solidly on the ground would be in the air, but it doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, for the 2hbh or even 1hbh, I feel like you could hit it bigger with your feet on the ground. You might leave the ground as you hit it, but you would not want to jump into the air as the players often do to get purchase on a higher ball. Certainly food for thought.
3) A 2hbh is not like an opposite forehand even if we do derive the majority of our power for this shot from the rear shoulder. That front shoulder is pulling and contributing something. It makes sense that this pulling interaction between front and rear shoulders could contribute to inhibiting the rotation of the shoulders all the way to the front as in a forehand. After all, when we hit the one-hander, the hips stay almost completely perpendicular to the net as we run our power around the pivot point through the front shoulder. And we all know some players use a lot more of the dominant hand in their 2hbh's than others. I believe most 2hbh's derive most of their power from the rear shoulder (and in turn rear hip), but I don't know that. This could explain the reduced hip rotation we see in the 2hbh, but I don't buy that the optimum shot would finish with the hips still perpendicular to the net. On the other hand, that might very much be the case when both feet are off the ground and the player is trying to use the scissor kick of his legs to stabilize the pelvis as a platform for the shoulders to work off.

continued below

[tennis_chiro]

More Food for thought

4)Finally, we get to my over-the-top example. Sometimes, I like to take measures to their extremes to try to get a better understanding of underlying principles. This is why I like to use things like my weighted rackets to make players feel what is happening with the racket head and also to experience how their muscles are working in their swing. So here goes, imagine the carnival booth where you try to hit the bell with a mallet to make the marker to up indicating how strong you are. Well, we are going to change that a little bit. We are going to make the bell a piston at waist height and instead of swinging down on top of the bell, you are going to have to drive the piston horizontally. It won't be enough to just hit the piston, you are going to have to make the mallet drive the piston in a straight line until it hits another gage which will measure how much force went in the right direction. (A little imagination and poetic license here, please!) Oh, and that mallet, it's going to be a sledgehammer, a heavy sledgehammer. Now would you rather swing that sledgehammer with your foot pushing on the ground or just hanging there off of your left hip? I might have that left foot off the ground by the time the sledgehammer contacts its target, but not only would I want to have my foot on the ground as I was beginning the swing, I would want good shoes that I could grip the ground with and I would be trying to get the sledgehammer moving with my legs and hips before my arms started to move, especially overcoming the initial static inertia of that heavy hammer. Of course, a tennis racket is much lighter and goes through the air much faster, but the ultimate goal would be the same: I would want to generate as much momentum = speed in the right direction times weight whether I'm swinging the light tennis racket or the heavy sledgehammer. Imagine a flat metal weight strung into the center of the stringbed of a racket. If the sledgehammer is too heavy, you could probably generate more momentum with the lighter tennis racket swung at a much higher speed. But for an optimum strike, I still want my foot solidly pushing on the ground.

For bonus points:
You are hitting a bounce overhead off a high lob 10' infront of the baseline in the middle of the court. The ball was high enough to give you plenty of time to move into position and it is actually going to bounce about 13 or 14 feet into the air so that you could hit a jump overhead if you felt it was advantageous. And it is going almost straight up and down at this point. Your opponents are back in position so there is no advantage gained by hitting it earlier. Would you try to jump or would you get set up with both feet on the ground and hit it without jumping?... that's what I thought... just saying, for all you jumping fools who think being 6'4" tall and making 65% first serves is great serving...

looking forward to everyone's comments,

don

[stotty]

To tackle the bonus points first. Yes, sure, off the bounce with both players standing at the back the element of risk would make the jump not worth it. Plus, stationing yourself under a bounce smash is a better option because it would take split second timing to jump for a bounce smash...risky.

Taking a smash in the air is entirely different. I had a decent overhead in my athletic days and there was nothing I liked more than back peddling and jumping for overheads, and I could hit a ball far harder when forced to jump for a smash than if I planted underneath and left the ground as a consequence of driving upwards.

I think a crouch smash or one where a player roots himself requires very fast racket speed to get power...with the body acting primarily as a post. You can hit jump smash with power and hardly know you’ve hit it. A well synchronised jump seems to work wonders in the energy stakes.

From a more radical standpoint jumping for SOME shots maybe something we see of in the future, certainly on dead ball forehands. Doing this off a two-handed backhand would present a different set of problems not so easy to overcome but doubtless someone will find a way.

Why do you think a two-hander derives most of his power from the rear shoulder when the rear shoulder is the non-dominant side? I tend to look at it the arms and shoulders working together fairly equally. Many players with good two-handers who have I spoken to often say their arms are exerting equal force. I have spoken to others who say it depends what phrase the stroke is in as to what which arm/shoulder is doing the most work. It seems to vary from player to player.

This does not change the fact that the left toe should be acting like an anchor holding you back after the hitting action is completed and as the followthrough is completed; but just before that contact point, the left foot should be exerting force to get the hips to turn.

Is it "holding the line" or pushing?...or pushing then holding the line? I am going for the latter.

I think 10splayer (and don_budge in previous posts) summed up the kinetic chain wonderfully...each link dissipating as the next commences. The Gary Player clip shows this also. I learnt a lot there. Holding the line with the rear foot also sums well what is going on. It’s tough to add to this on top of what the article already covers.

Enough said...be interesting to see what others think.

[10splayer]

Thanks Don for your thoughts, as always very provocative. It's fun to theorize about these complex series of moves, but in the end it's just that. (unless Gordon came on and clarified)

Unlike some on this forum, I believe great players have figured out the best way to go about their business. Especially when one sees the same thing across the board. Yandell has a knack for finding universal commonalities, and this is one. I tend to believe, (as i mentioned) there is some kinetic chain reason for it, but, again, at the end of the day, it's all speculation.

Not sure it really matters "why" for both player and coach when so universal.

[hockeyscout]

I have to say this article, and all of them on this site are so interesting. Its so radically out of left field for us. Which is great. We're preaching and doing the exact polar opposite. All of this dialogue is sure interesting to us because it's shows us how tennis players are taught, what they like to do, how they all have similar commonalities and how that can be tactically used against them in match play. That is sports coaching in a nutshell, see what everyone does, understand the commonalities, know the kenetic chain reason for why they do what they do and use it against them to break them down.

Now, you all have to switch gears to the woman's game.

Woman's tennis points are always won in the 1-2-3-4-5 balls. The statistics bear this out, as well, and we've done a lot of work here in that department. It isn't like men's tennis that is for sure, and their are MANY analytical differences in how points are constructed, and how players move, and hit. The woman's game has a long ways to go, and the men's is quite evolved.

Now, I do not like the word recovery step. Never use it. I see Russian coaches teaching it, and I do not feel it is really applicable to the game of tennis in the way we know it. We teach transitional steps.

Their is a major difference in my opinion, and when you have an athlete who understands the transitional game to their next, a player who thinks in terms of a one dimensional recovery step has no way of competing with the pace as these coaches are simply teaching these kids to STOP, and switch off. And I see it all the time, kids hit the ball and their feet stop moving. Coming from the world of hockey, I see it probably better than any tennis coach, cause transitional movement is so big in sports like hockey and NFL. In tennis you can get away with a pause here and their, and admire a ball, however, not in other sports. In hockey you can't admire a pass or think about you're tennis recovery step after the shot, you need to think about the next, and finishing the play. So, I'd never teach it, or dare pay attention to it, as most coaches teach the kids to stop. I don't want that. Recovery steps are a concern to me. I am into flow and transition. Others coaches stop and start. I do not like stop and start with young athletes, I believe in eliptical movement, flow, and transitional movement as their joint are developing, and many do not have the hip flexor strength needed to correctly take the pressure off their knees and ankles when applying the brakes. BTW, I just detest kids sliding on the tennis court as well!

So, this recovery step, its a strange concept to me, as it doesn't technically exhist (again, it is a transitinal step, or at least the way we see it).

I am a firm believer in teaching players how to play the game in 1-3-5 motions, and if you stop at 1 (and discuss a recovery step) they will likely never develop the pace or thinking man's combinations needed to be a professional athlete of any sport.

Tennis is a game of open windows, and closed windows (much like any sport), and in my opinion shots 1-3 are a combination shot. Trained athletes who think in combinations are dominant, and will always improve. Those who think in terms of recovery will fail, soon or later, or peak out well before their time.

Its not hit = (and) recovery step.

First off I don't like the word hit. I like the word play. Tennis people use construct (play). So, it's (hit) play = accelerate into transition + to + next + behind the ball + third ball + using your opponents pace and momentum to your advantage, and as well, coming into the ball at the right time with the right pace. I dislike arriving in position, coiling and waiting for a ball. I like arriving at the ball at the correct time with maximum velocity, and using that pace to transition to your next wherever it may be. Its a different way of playing tennis, and it certainly takes a lot longer to develop, however, I feel it is better suited to young athletes bodys. When my young one gets older, I may have to fine tune a lot of this, however, I believe by making it harder now I will have a player who will be able to play basic tennis rather easily moving forward. And it is much harder this way, as she has to move to the ball with pace like a soccer player instead of waiting, or letting a ball bounce to high.

The question for us is not a recovery step, it is how can counter number 2 (the opponents ball) with your number 3 most effectively?

I feel if you hit and recover, you're offensive field focus closes. If you hit, transition, and get into counter-attack position for ball three you are good as gold. So, in a nutshell tennis is a 1-3-5 game (the woman's is), and before as you enter shot number 1, you'd better know where you are going to counter shot number 3.

This is analytical footwork. You need to do it by choice. Here, we practice routes, know the analytics of each shot and the end play options. If you are in spot A on ball one, and you want to put it to spot B on the opponents court, you'd better know exactly what are the percentages for you're opponent are based on statistical odds, for his - her shot 3, and how will you counter that by moving the proper route to the ball with the timing and pace to use their energy against them.

Again, I do not like waiting, coiling and hitting, as that's way to tough on a young arm, and I especially dislike open stance. I always want the feet and hands moving together on a young arm, and I think it sets them up better in terms of movement, and transition when you don't allow them to get lazy with these new space age rackets and strings that reward terrible athletism.

Tennis is a fast sport, or at least our version of it is, and their are 100 ways to transition to your next offensive forray based on the factors of how you want to construct the point, so personally I would avoid at all costs even thinking about a recovery step as their are a hundred varients you can do for each (play), and is going to be a unique specifically designed movement - athletic setup with the feet, hips, collarbone etc, and even the follow through and hand positioning.

Also, every play needs a certain stroke, so it can be slice forehand, drop shot, forehand, two handed backhand, one handed slice, one handed backhand, lob, bert, monkey, bert, top spin, underspin, flat, hard, soft, changeup, whatever, and transitional footwork will need to be different depending on the situation and how you are planning to manipulate your opponent with your specific 1-3 combination, or 1-3-5 combination or if worse comes to worse 1-3-5-7 combo (if you choose to be a mean cat and play with the mouse on the other side of the court).

Anyways, we are likely doing things very differently, however, it is such a pleasure to read these articles and the posts so we can learn about constructing our playbooks to understand what may (or may not) get thrown back at us on the 1-3, 1-3-5 and 1-3-5-7 combos (and of course the 2's, 2-4, and 2-4-6 and god help us 2-4-6-8 game).

Now, this strategy I believe will be effective in the woman's game. I don't have a boy I am training yet, so who knows, it would probably be much different.

Anyways, I am teaching serve and volley, so I think transition, transition and transition. Let everyone else recover, however, we are going to play for broke, do Geoff Williams body shots all day and gain athletism and really think of ingenious ways to win points against hitting partners who are men, and we have no business of even being on the same court with playing. Gotta have fun, and be origional!

Thanks for the great posts boys, we're really enjoying reading this site.

[hockeyscout]

Okay. Now we have a deeper discussion started. I don't know if I can get my thoughts down in the correct order, but there are definitely a couple of points I wanted to highlight. They may not be in the correct order of hierarchy, but I'm going to try to get them out.

My main points:
1). I like the separation of the recovery step from the actual hitting action, but there is more to understanding that comparison to the Gary Player step-through.
2). I love 10sPlayer's emphasis on the staging of the different pieces of the kinetic chain. There is a fundamental conservation of force or momentum or whatever in play here. But that the fact that one stage stops to transfer its' energy to the next link in the kinetic chain, necessarily implies that that first stage fired in the first place.
3). There should be some fundamental difference between a two-handed backhand and an opposite hand forehand; after all, we are doing something with that second hand.
4). Finally, I have a ridiculous, over-the-top analogy to try and make my point about the use of the hips to power the maximum power 2hbh.

So, first the separation of the recovery step. One of the big, underemphasized advantages of open-stance strokes is the fact that you are closer to the center of the court and have a shorter recovery to make because you didn't take that last step to close the stance; but even there, the recovery movement happens after the completion of the real hitting action of the stroke. And it's a big mistake, when you do assume that closed stance (which we are recognizing happens most of the time on the pro bh, one or two-handed) to try to execute the recovery before you complete the hitting action. I think KLACR made the point about pulling out of the shot too soon. I see this all the time. It's really important to complete the shot and get the weight all the way to the front side. This is what Gary Player's step-through is all about. The non-golfers here may not be as familiar, but one of the most common faults in a hacker's golf swing is a "reverse pivot". The classic golf swing is supposed to rock the weight from front to back on the backswing loading the hips and shoulders with the "x-factor" and then unwind that force leading from the bottom up with the legs moving the weight to the front leg where all the weight is on the front leg by contact and moreover settles there in the classic golf follow-through. In the "reverse pivot", the hacker ends up loading from front to back and all the way to the middle or the front on the backswing and ends up going from front to back as he swings the club down to the ball. One of the other classic hacker's faults (and single digit golfer's faults as well) is swinging from the top or going over the top. This means, basically, that they are starting the downward swing with their hands and arms instead of with their legs and hips; yeah, we are talking kinetic chain again. A lot of golfers really have a terrible time overcoming that "reverse pivot". Perhaps at some time in his career or development, Gary Player had a similar problem. His solution was to be sure that he could step forward down the fairway immediately after his swing was completed and the result is the signature GP "step through follow through". Obviously, it would be very hard to do if you had finished your swing with your weight on your back foot. You'd have to transfer the weight off that rear foot before you could make the step forward. This seems pretty obvious and simple, but I can't tell you how many golfers I've seen struggling to overcome that reverse pivot. It probably happens less now with all the video we have available on our phones, but it is still a major problem for a lot of golfers. To a certain extent, there is a "reverse pivot" in the 2hbh (as Kyle pointed out) when the weight transfer is not completed and held until the end of the hitting action if not the full followthrough. I insist on until the full followthrough because if the player comes out of the shot too early it is going to impact the quality of the transfer of momentum to the ball.
2) 10sPlayer and don_budge (with his rocket ship) both make great points about the transfer of energy from one link in the kinetic chain to the next. But if that link wasn't really moving in the first place, it wouldn't have any energy to contribute to the process. We also get back to that equal and opposite reaction business. (Remember Vic Braden telling Roscoe about the amount of force on the ground when he hit that serve. Of course, if we start to travel down that avenue of discussion we will get sidetracked on the whole business of how much energy went into the ball and how much went into just lifting the player into the air - ever think about that!?) If that left leg and hip is actually contributing any force to the 2hbh, then there has to be some force on the ground at the left foot; it can only contribute some portion of the force with which it is pushing on the ground. If that foot is sliding back away from the ''stance line", it can't be exerting any real force on the ground. If you are in the air, as Murray is in the clip, the left leg can't push on the ground and the left leg has to kick back to counter balance and create opposite momentum that enables the upper body to have something to swing against; this is a little like the kick we execute when we make a jump overhead, especially moving backwards (boy, did I used to love hitting those! If I tried to make that kick now, I would just end up in a heap on the ground with I don't know what muscles pulled!). Maybe the hips don't turn all the way to the front like they do on a forehand, but there should be significant hip rotation, and not just from closed at 135 degrees to 90 degrees(perpendicular to the net), at least to 45 degrees if not all the way forward like in a forehand. This does not change the fact that the left toe should be acting like an anchor holding you back after the hitting action is completed and as the followthrough is completed; but just before that contact point, the left foot should be exerting force to get the hips to turn. Certainly, it is possible to use your right side exclusively to turn the hips even as your left foot is off the ground, but that would not be ideal and it certainly would not be the most powerful hip turn. (more on that in my example below). Remember, I am talking about the ideal way to hit the biggest, baddest, best possible 2hbh.
My first guess about how can I hit a bigger forehand on a sitter, in the air ala Federer "not gone" video or solidly on the ground would be in the air, but it doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, for the 2hbh or even 1hbh, I feel like you could hit it bigger with your feet on the ground. You might leave the ground as you hit it, but you would not want to jump into the air as the players often do to get purchase on a higher ball. Certainly food for thought.
3) A 2hbh is not like an opposite forehand even if we do derive the majority of our power for this shot from the rear shoulder. That front shoulder is pulling and contributing something. It makes sense that this pulling interaction between front and rear shoulders could contribute to inhibiting the rotation of the shoulders all the way to the front as in a forehand. After all, when we hit the one-hander, the hips stay almost completely perpendicular to the net as we run our power around the pivot point through the front shoulder. And we all know some players use a lot more of the dominant hand in their 2hbh's than others. I believe most 2hbh's derive most of their power from the rear shoulder (and in turn rear hip), but I don't know that. This could explain the reduced hip rotation we see in the 2hbh, but I don't buy that the optimum shot would finish with the hips still perpendicular to the net. On the other hand, that might very much be the case when both feet are off the ground and the player is trying to use the scissor kick of his legs to stabilize the pelvis as a platform for the shoulders to work off.

continued below

I gotta say wow. My compliments. 10,000 different solutions for 10,000 problems! Nice work.

[10splayer]

http://youtu.be/-zHveFE1hus

Boys, what do you think? I think some of the analysis is bogus, but what do you see here in terms of the hip movements?

[stotty]

http://youtu.be/-zHveFE1hus

Boys, what do you think? I think some of the analysis is bogus, but what do you see here in terms of the hip movements?

I know little about golf but Rory's swing looks prettier than GP's.

I am just wondering about the hips "firing again to give that little extra power", part. Why would the hips firing again, after they have stalled momentarily, create more power? In slow motion the stall seems quite long.

[don_budge]

Second stage…hip boosters

http://youtu.be/-zHveFE1hus

Boys, what do you think? I think some of the analysis is bogus, but what do you see here in terms of the hip movements?

I would say that the "second stage" of hip movement was merely an after-product of his follow through. This is where Gary Player is walking on through his swing. It's recovery…for balance.

[10splayer]

I know little about golf but Rory's swing looks prettier than GP's.

I am just wondering about the hips "firing again to give that little extra power", part. Why would the hips firing again, after they have stalled momentarily, create more power? In slow motion the stall seems quite long.

Yes, that's the part I don't agree with. For one thing, the ball is 50 yards down the fairway at the time the hips begin to turn again. It would have zero impact. As DB states, there is momentum though, and that needs to dissipate.

Rory is one of the most extreme examples (least that Ive seen) of the hips almost stopping completely..In fact if you look at his right butt cheek, it appears he's pulling his right leg back...Not rotating it.

So the equation (simplified) would be (in the downswing) weight shift (bump) from right to left leg...followed by rotation around left leg (internal?) while the right leg is (at some stage) used to slow down the rate of rotation...I think there are mechanical similarities between this and a two handed backhand, for instance. In other words the rear hip isn't really "firing" into the shot as much as one would think, but used to control over rotation..

This "rotation" of the rear hip, (as I understand Tennis Chiro's position) is the major impetus in a two hander..Don't think I agree, but would love to entertain other thoughts...